Even if nuclear armament

Even if nuclear armament is an unrealistic discussion, shouldn't it be necessary to secure nuclear response capabilities? Shouldn't it be possible to secure nuclear-powered submarines.

Sometimes I see people saying this. Even a person who "self-proclaimed" that he was a strong presidential candidate made remarks to that effect. As to why he met the monk, I should point out the lack of sense of PTO among his aides, but apart from that, I have to draw a question mark as to whether a nuclear-powered submarine can be understood from the perspective of nuclear responsiveness.

Submarine-launched ballistic missiles serve as the primary goal for nuclear-powered submarines. Bombers dropped bombs in the early days of nuclear power, and as missile technology advances, the option of attaching nuclear warheads to ground-launched ballistic missiles is added. Ballistic missiles were a much more effective nuclear option because they were unmanned and practically impossible to intercept, compared to the fact that bombers had to fly to enemy airspace and drop the bombs themselves. As a result, ballistic missile power rises rapidly.

However, there is also a problem here. Ballistic missiles are enormous and heavy. Even if you build a separate nuclear silo facility or mount it on a mobile launch pad, it takes a long time from preparation for launch to actual firing. In this case, signs of an attack can be detected in advance and it is easy to preemptively strike. Therefore, most of the primary targets of a large-scale nuclear war during the Cold War were aimed at the enemy's nuclear facilities. If the enemy strikes a second or third nuclear strike from this side, the possibility of a counterattack must be prevented in advance. As satellite surveillance has become commonplace with the advent of the space era, nuclear power on land has become a major target of surveillance by the other country.

Someone came up with a brilliant idea here. Submarines under the sea cannot be tracked by satellites, so why not shoot them with ballistic missiles? This is why they came up with submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). At first, they modified ordinary submarines to load ballistic missiles. However, submarines using internal combustion engines such as diesel have to come to the surface periodically. The internal combustion engine cannot be operated underwater, so the batteries have to be charged with the internal combustion engine, and when the batteries are discharged, the internal combustion engine has to be operated to charge them. This is the most vulnerable moment for submarines, as it is now. Ballistic missile submarines are more vulnerable.

So the idea was to convert the engine into a reactor rather than an internal combustion engine. In theory, unlimited submerged navigation is possible because nuclear fission reactions do not require oxygen, unlike internal combustion engines. In other words, ballistic missile submarines were scattered somewhere in the ocean, usually submerged, and in case of emergency, they floated for a while so that only missiles could be fired. The combination of ballistic missiles and nuclear propulsion gave rise to the strongest strategic weapon ever. It is powerful, but it is difficult to find where it is due to the high density of silver.

The issue is that nuclear-powered ballistic missiles are so expensive that they are the primary target of enemy submarine units and anti-submarine networks. Enemy submarines search for them with their eyes on fire. However, if the other party is able to dive indefinitely with nuclear propulsion, the hunters who follow them will be able to hunt more skillfully if the same conditions are met. As a result, attacking submarines that do not carry ballistic missiles also begin to have nuclear reactors. Their primary mission was to identify, intercept, or escort enemy ballistic missile submarines.

In other words, it means that the strategic value of a nuclear propulsion system will be greatly reduced unless it possesses ballistic missile submarines or has a navy to deal with them. Of course, a ballistic missile at this time is based on a nuclear warhead, and it should be assumed that a ballistic missile submarine also has a nuclear propulsion system. North Korea is known to have built a submarine capable of shooting ballistic missiles (similar to that), but it is also known to have a nuclear warhead, but it is unclear whether it has succeeded in miniaturizing nuclear warheads to the level that can be actually mounted on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. In fact, for now, it is doubtful whether ballistic missile submarines will be able to become more powerful. Is it a nuclear-powered submarine aimed at tracking and intercepting this? Well, I don't know.

Of course, it would be better than nothing, but as everything goes, it is difficult to allocate limited resources efficiently. The Korean Navy has not yet secured enough conventional submarines for the duration of their operational waters, and the first generation Jang Bogo ships, which were commissioned in the late 1990s, are nearing their retirement. Of course, nuclear-powered submarines are much more expensive. Even if we invest in purchasing four to five conventional submarines, will we still be able to procure one? Of course, there are additional costs for technology development to build a nuclear-powered submarine. When simple numbers are compared to whether giving up four to five conventional submarines and purchasing one nuclear-powered submarine will benefit or harm the Korean Navy's power, I honestly think the latter is better.

Technology development is actually not as easy as it sounds. Nuclear-powered submarines will have to be 6-7,000 tons at most conservative, even if they are built with nuclear reactors. However, Korea has never designed such a large submarine. In the end, technology transfer or cooperation from abroad will be inevitable, and I wonder which country (the person who refers to the president) would readily share nuclear-powered submarine technology with a country that possesses nuclear weapons. The U.S. has already opened up, and there is no reason for the U.K. or France to extend a hand, and has effectively turned a blind eye to Russia. Independent development? Well, by the time I retire, I may see a nuclear-powered submarine.

That's it. If we want to talk about that, we need to revise the Korea-U.S. nuclear agreement first. If we don't revise the agreement that prohibits the military use of nuclear power, it will be like catching a cloud of nuclear-powered submarines, let alone nuclear weapons. What is Korea now? Yes, the sensitive country that Biden has pointed to. The foreign ministry was not aware of what the "blood alliance" was doing in January, but now it has to find out what's going on